Jews for Hitler

Gay Republicans are beneath contempt. They are the modern equivalent of pro-Nazi Jews.

Rick Santorum, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, and No. 3 in the GOP leadership:

If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

All of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution.

From the same article, Log Cabin Republican Executive Director Patrick Guerriero:

There is nothing conservative about allowing law enforcement officials to enter the home of any American and arrest them for simply being gay. I am deeply troubled that Sen. Santorum would divide America in a time of war. Mainstream America is embracing tolerance and inclusion. I am appalled that a member of the United States Senate leadership would advocate dividing Americans with ugly, hate-filled rhetoric.

... and John Partain, president of the Pennsylvania Log Cabin Republicans:

The discriminatory remarks made by Sen. Santorum clearly do not reflect the compassionate conservatism promised by our president.

"Compassionate conservative" George W. Bush supported the Texas sodomy law when it came under legal challenge, calling it a "symbol of traditional values".

Here is some more of that "compassionate conservatism", from the 2002 Republican Party of Texas Platform (see the PDF for the full version, or this from Google):

Homosexuality The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.

Texas Sodomy Statues [sic]
The Party opposed the decriminalization of sodomy.

I'm amused by the "fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders" part. If anyone has information on what our Founding Fathers or Jesus had to say on the subject of homosexuality, please email me.

Here is the relevant section of the 2000 National Republican Party Platform:

We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages. We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself. That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts. For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

Man, I love the internet. It helps us hear "other" voices. I mean, I'm not one to think that it isn't just bizarre Christian "groups" that don't get outside of their boxes, I'm fairly certain the urban gay community, the middle-aged northern-california ex-hippie community, and the Ph.D in Medieval Lit community rarely, if ever, get outside of their "groups" either.

The kicker is, I'm fairly certain that real embracing and understanding of other "voices" and "views" only comes through real meaningful and understanding relationships with people who hold vastly differing ideologies from whatever/wherever you may stand.

Anyway, all that to say, damn fine blog (despite my disagreements with it), and here's to one day running into each other in a bar somewhere and having a chat or 3.

Y'know, it's a rather strange argument from the legality of homosexuality to the legality of bigamy, etc. How exactly is this supposed to work? Any argument dealing with sexual privacy wouldn't work since then heterosexual marriage itself would lead down the slippery slope. However, this probably isn't the thinkinh since I don't put it past the Republicans to think not only is homosexuality wrong but also that everyone hetero should be doing missionary.

It's really unfathomable how allowing consentual homosexual sex would lead to anything that consentual heterosexual sex doesn't already lead to. Even "deviance breeds deviance" doesn't really work unless you want the state inside married people's bedrooms to begin with. How odd...

What must the log cabin Republicans be thinking?

I was appalled when I read Santorum's remarks. I keep trying to think of some appropriate response, but since his position (and that of the republican party) is so irrational and prejudiced, its hard to determin an appropriate course of action.
And of course, the fact that his narrow-minded bigotry is probably a commonly held view only makes it worse.
He and his kind are an embarassment.

Santorum: He's against sex, unless it's blessed by a Priest or it is with a Priest.

Josiah, thanks for you comments. I'm concerned, however, that you think there is a conversation to be had between myself and people like Mr. Santorum. I am not willing to debate my right to exist, or to have sex outside of Catholic doctrine, with anyone.

I am always disturbed by TV shows that feel they must put people like Santorum opposite gay people to show "balance". To me that is the equivalent of putting members of the KKK on with black people to discuss civil rights. I'm not willing to debate someone I consider evil and a bigot. There's no point.

I also have my doubts about putting people in power who believe in a higher power and an afterlife. I don't see much incentive for people like Santorum and Bush to improve the lives of those who suffer from hardship. I also see little evidence that they care about such people.

About this Entry

Published on April 22, 2003 12:24 AM.

previous entry: Culture blogs

next entry: Go see Così at BAM



3 latest

3 random